sensors

Article
LoRa 2.4 GHz Communication Link and Range
Thomas Janssen , Noori BniLam , Michiel Aernouts , Rafael Berkvens
and Maarten Weyn *
IDLab-Faculty of Applied Engineering, University of Antwerp-imec, Sint-Pietersvliet 7, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium;
thomas.janssen@uantwerpen.be (T.J.); noori.bnilam@uantwerpen.be (N.B.);
michiel.aernouts@uantwerpen.be (M.A.); rafael.berkvens@uantwerpen.be (R.B.)
* Correspondence: maarten.weyn@uantwerpen.be




Received: 9 July 2020; Accepted: 4 August 2020; Published: 5 August 2020


Abstract: Recently, Semtech has released a Long Range (LoRa) chipset which operates at the globally
available 2.4 GHz frequency band, on top of the existing sub-GHz, km-range offer, enabling hardware
manufacturers to design region-independent chipsets. The SX1280 LoRa module promises an
ultra-long communication range while withstanding heavy interference in this widely used band.
In this paper, we first provide a mathematical description of the physical layer of LoRa in the
2.4 GHz band. Secondly, we investigate the maximum communication range of this technology in
three different scenarios. Free space, indoor and urban path loss models are used to simulate the
propagation of the 2.4 GHz LoRa modulated signal at different spreading factors and bandwidths.
Additionally, we investigate the corresponding data rates. The results show a maximum range of
133 km in free space, 74 m in an indoor office-like environment and 443 m in an outdoor urban context.
While a maximum data rate of 253.91 kbit/s can be achieved, the data rate at the longest possible
range in every scenario equals 0.595 kbit/s. Due to the configurable bandwidth and lower data rates,
LoRa outperforms other technologies in the 2.4 GHz band in terms of communication range. In
addition, both communication and localization applications deployed in private LoRa networks can
benefit from the increased bandwidth and localization accuracy of this system when compared to
public sub-GHz networks.

Keywords: low power wide area networks; LPWAN; LoRaWAN; LoRa; 2.4 GHz; wireless sensor
networks; path loss modeling; range estimation

1. Introduction
More than a decade ago, Long Range (LoRa) was invented to—as the name indicates—provide a
low power wide area network (LPWAN) protocol operating at sub-GHz frequencies. Because of local
spectrum regulations, LoRa hardware modules need to be adapted to operate in different frequency
bands. For example, in the US, the 915 MHz band is used, while in Europe, most LoRa chipsets operate
in the 868 MHz band. In the past, we have conducted extensive research on communication and
localization with sub-GHz LPWAN.
Semtech, the founding member of the LoRa Alliance, recently released a LoRa chipset operating
at 2.4 GHz. The move from sub-GHz to 2.4 GHz was mainly done in order to use the globally available
2.4 GHz Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band. This tackles the problem of having to develop
multiple chipsets which operate at different frequency bands, thus paving the way for the development
of a universal chipset which can operate anywhere in the world. This is especially valid for track and
trace applications, where goods cross different zones worldwide. Nevertheless, the potential benefits
of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz band have not yet been investigated thoroughly, which constitutes the main
objective of this paper.

Sensors 2020, 20, 4366; doi:10.3390/s20164366 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 2 of 12

In general, the range of sub-GHz LPWAN varies from a few kilometers in urban environments to
more than 10 km in rural environments. Obviously, the maximum communication range between the
transmitter and receiver also depends on the used frequency band. The goal of this research is to study
the inverse relationship between the maximum communication range and the corresponding data rate
of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz band.
Since sub-GHz LoRa devices are very limited in terms of their number of possible
transmissions—i.e., to comply with duty cycle regulations—they are typically used for applications
that do not require frequent communication. For example, Sendra et al. proposed a LoRa-based forest
fire detection system that transmits sensor measurements every 28 min [1]. Besides this, the long-range
communication benefit of sub-GHz LoRa has been exploited to provide emergency services in GPS-less
environments [2]. Other application examples with sub-GHz LoRa include smart meter reading,
environmental monitoring, smart farming and smart building applications [3,4]. On the other hand,
LoRa devices that operate at 2.4 GHz are able to transmit at higher data rates because of the higher
available bandwidth [5]. Consequently, this technology can offer a balance for applications that
require a higher data rate than LPWANs and a longer communication range than classic 2.4 GHz
technologies such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Additionally, a higher bandwidth also allows for more
accurate time-based localization [6]. Thus, LoRa at 2.4 GHz represents an interesting solution for a
variety of applications that involve indoor localization, such as warehouse management, but also
for applications that require outdoor localization, such as construction site monitoring, livestock
tracking, etc. Moreover, the adoption of this technology can add flexibility to applications that require
consistent asset tracking in both indoor and harsh outdoor environments; e.g., smart ports.
The main contributions of this work are the following:

• We provide an overview of the physical layer of LoRa operating at 2.4 GHz.

• We discuss the maximum communication range and data rate in three different scenarios:
free space, indoor and urban environments.
• We discuss the impact of moving from LoRa at sub-GHz bands to 2.4 GHz on communication and
localization applications.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 contains related work regarding
LoRa in both sub-GHz bands and the 2.4 GHz band. Subsequently, a mathematical background of
LoRa at 2.4 GHz is provided in Section 3. Next, three path loss models are presented in Section 4 in
order to estimate the maximum communication range and corresponding data rate in a free space
and in indoor and urban environments. The results of these estimations are shown in Section 5 and
compared to other technologies operating in the 2.4 GHz band in Section 6, which also discusses the
impact on the application potential of LoRa at 2.4 GHz. Finally, general conclusions are drawn in
Section 7.

2. Related Work
With the aim of providing a low power, long-range wireless communication protocol,
Semtech acquired the startup company Cycleo, which developed LoRa in 2009. The authors in [7]
provided an in-depth analysis of the functional components of both the physical (LoRa) and data link
(LoRaWAN) layer of the popular LPWAN protocol operating in unlicensed bands.
Sub-GHz LoRa-based communication has been studied thoroughly in the past decade. Acting
as a layer above LoRa, LoRaWAN is widely used to communicate small messages over large areas.
A LoRaWAN network can fully cover a city-scale environment with only a few gateways. The mobility
of LoRaWAN has been addressed in [8]. The forwarding of an uplink message by multiple gateways
ensures that a handover can take place without any loss of data. In another study, a robust frame
detection algorithm was proposed in order to detect LoRa-modulated frames with minimal complexity
implementations [9]. Furthermore, a frame relay strategy was found to be a feasible way to improve
the link quality of poorly connected nodes and successfully extend the range of LoRaWAN [10].
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 3 of 12

In addition to the communication aspect of LPWAN, a significant amount of research, both from
academic and industrial perspectives, has involved the location objects with of sub-GHz LPWAN.
We conducted extensive research on localization with different LPWAN technologies. We evaluated the
accuracy of received signal strength (RSS)-based localization algorithms for Sigfox [11], LoRaWAN [12]
and NB-IoT [13]. We also provided an angle of arrival (AoA) estimation solution that is suitable for use
in sub-GHz bands [14,15]. Furthermore, we devised a probabilistic localization model that combines
time difference of arrival (TDOA) and AoA estimations in a sub-GHz LoRa network [6].
Recently, Semtech released the SX1280 chipset, which operates at 2.4 GHz [5]. In an application
note, the company provides an introduction to time-of-flight (ToF) ranging possibilities with the radio
chip [16]. A proof-of-concept implementation for coherent multi-channel ranging with this LoRa radio
chip is provided in [17].
A few concerns are raised by the move from sub-GHz frequencies to the widely used unlicensed
2.4 GHz ISM band. The interference properties of wireless local area networks (WLAN, also denoted
as Wi-Fi) devices operating in this band were characterized in [18]. In another study, coexistence
issues with Wi-Fi and LoRa 2.4 GHz were addressed [19]. The theoretical assumptions about the
high robustness of the system against interference are confirmed. However, it was found that the
robustness highly depends on both the configuration of LoRa and the properties of interfering
technologies. Moreover, Polak et al. used different bandwidths in their evaluation and compared
them to the bandwidths that are currently available for LoRa at 2.4 GHz.
The maximum communication range in the 2.4 GHz band strongly depends on the technology and
its respective transmission power. For the latest Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE 5) standard, the maximum
communication ranges in different scenarios are summarized in [20]. Typical ranges are 50 m in an
indoor scenario, 165 m in an outdoor non-line-of-sight (NLoS) scenario and 780 m in a LoS scenario.
In this research, we will investigate the range of 2.4 GHz LoRa in a free space and in indoor and
outdoor scenarios.

3. LoRa in the 2.4 GHz Band

The physical layer of LoRa is a proprietary and closed source. Therefore, there are no official
references or protocol specifications for the transmitted RF signal [21]. Accordingly, several research
groups have been working to provide an understanding of the LoRa modulation scheme in the
sub-GHz frequency band. Vangelista [22], for instance, has provided a mathematical model, called
Frequency Shift Chirp Modulation (FSCM), that describes the LoRa modulation process. The same
model has been adopted by Bernier et al. [9]. On the other hand, Knight [21], Robyns et al. [23]
and Ghanaatian et al. [24] have provided a model called Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) modulation
based on the reverse engineering of LoRa’s physical layer. Even though the formulation of the LoRa
modulation scheme in the literature has been provided for the sub-GHz frequency band, the basic
response of the modulation is expected to be the same for LoRa signals in the 2.4 GHz frequency band.
Therefore, in this section, we modify the available physical layer models of sub-GHz LoRa to make
them suitable for use in the 2.4 GHz frequency band.
Assume xs (k) is the transmitted LoRa sample; then, the received sampled signal xr (k) with index
k can be expressed as
xr (k ) = ar xs (k − τ )ei2π∆ f k + ω (k), (1)

where ar < 1 is the received signal amplitude, τ is the time delay of the sample xs (k ) at the receiver,
∆ f is the frequency offset between the transmitter and the receiver, and ω (k ) is the identically
independently distributed (i.i.d.) complex-valued Gaussian noise with zero-mean and variance
σ2 ; i.e., CN (0, σ2 ). The time and frequency synchronization are beyond the scope of this paper.
Therefore, in the following, we will consider a simplified version of (1), shown in (2).

xr ( k ) = ar x s ( k ) + ω ( k ) (2)
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 4 of 12

The LoRa standard linear upchirp—also called a base chirp—can be expressed as [23,24]
BW 2 + f
xs (k ) = ei2π ( 2K k ◦k ), (3)

where BW is the operational bandwidth of the LoRa signal in the 2.4 GHz frequency band (as shown
in Table 1) and K = 2SF /BW is the symbol duration, with SF representing the spreading factor (also
shown in Table 1). Finally, f ◦ is the initial frequency, which can be expressed as

BW
f◦ = s , (4)
2SF

where s ∈ 0, 1 . . . 2SF is the transmitted data symbol. Setting s = 0 results in an upchirp, in which


the frequency continuously increases during the symbol duration K.

We can also present (3) as
BW k2 + K f
◦k
xs (k) = WK 2 , WK = ei2π/K . (5)

Table 1. Parameters used for path loss modeling.

Model Parameter Symbol Value Unit

Frequency f 2.4 GHz
Spreading factor SF 5–12 -
Bandwidth BW 203/406/812/1625 kHz
Code rate RC 4/5 -
Transmission power PTX 12.5 dBm
Transmitter antenna gain GTX 2 dBi
Transmitter cable losses L TX 2 dB
Fading margin Lm 0 dB
Receiver antenna gain GRX 2 dBi
Receiver cable losses L RX 2 dB
Base station height hb 20 m
Mobile station height hm 2 m

The model in (5) is the linearly cyclically shifted version of a base Zadoff–Chu (ZC) sequence [25].
The ZC sequence possesses a unique autocorrelation property, in which the periodic autocorrelation is
orthogonal (i.e., equal to zero) for all shifted replicas [26]. Therefore, the LoRa communication protocol
uses this unique property to impose a random multiple access technique. Accordingly, an efficient
utilization of the unlicensed spectrum can be obtained. The correlation between the received signal
and the base chirp leads to

K −1
1
z(k) =
K ∑ x (k + p) xs∗ (k)mod K
p =0
K −1
1
=
K ∑ (ar xs (k + p) + ω (k + p)) xs∗ (k), (6)
p =0

ar Es + νω for p = 0
=
νω for p 6= 0

where Es is the energy of the symbol xs . Furthermore, νω is the correlation between complex noise and
the base chirp, which can be expressed as

K −1
1
νω =
K ∑ xs∗ (k)ω (k + p), (7)
p =0
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 5 of 12

in which νω ∼ CN (0, σ2 /K ).
Figure 1 presents two received LoRa signals that constitute eight preamble (upchirp) symbols at
2.4 GHz with a bandwidth equal to 812 kHz. The short signal was transmitted at an SF of 9, while the
longer signal was transmitted at an SF of 10. Figure 1a,b shows the combined received signals in the
time domain and in the spectrogram (i.e., time and frequency) domain, respectively. Figure 1c,d shows
the cross-correlation functions (6) when the received signals have been cross-correlated with base
chirps of the SF equal to 10 and 9, respectively. It is clear that the two signals can be distinguished
correctly, even though they interfere with each other. The unique orthogonality property of the ZC
sequence allows the LoRa communication system to provide a multiple access technique in the 2.4 GHz
frequency band.

Figure 1. Two received Long Range (LoRa) signals constitute eight preamble upchirp symbols at
2.4 GHz with a bandwidth equal to 812 kHz. The spreading factor (SF) of the short signal, which ended
after approximately 5 ms, is equal to 9, while the SF of the long-duration signal is equal to 10. Figures
(a) and (b) represent the combined received signals in the time domain and in the spectrogram (i.e.,
time and frequency) domain, respectively. Figures (c) and (d) are the cross-correlation functions (6)
when the received signals have been cross-correlated with base chirps of the SF equal to 10 and 9,
respectively.

4. Path Loss Modeling

In order to obtain the maximum communication range of a LoRa signal at 2.4 GHz (further
denoted as d), we need to find the maximum link budget for which the signal can be received
properly; i.e., at the receiver sensitivity PRX . This receiver sensitivity depends on two key factors: the
used spreading factor (SF) and bandwidth (BW). While the SF can range from 5 to 12, the possible
bandwidths of LoRa at 2.4 GHz are 203, 406, 812 and 1625 kHz. Furthermore, the combination of a
certain SF and BW results in a certain data rate, along with the receiver sensitivity, as shown in Table 2.
The raw data rate Rb , expressed in kbit/s, can be calculated as

SF ∗ BW
Rb = , (8)
2SF
with SF and BW as defined in Table 1. As an example, a LoRa signal transmitted with an SF of 8 and a
BW of 406 kHz results in a receiver sensitivity of −116 dBm and a data rate of 12.69 kbit/s. The receiver
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 6 of 12

sensitivities and data rates used in this work originate from the datasheet of the Semtech SX1280 LoRa
module [5].

Table 2. Receiver sensitivities (PRX in dBm) and corresponding data rates (R D in kbit/s) of the SX1280
LoRa module for every combination of spreading factors (SFs) and bandwidths (BWs).

BW (kHz)
203 406 812 1625
SF PRX RD PRX RD PRX RD PRX RD
5 −109 31.72 −107 63.44 −105 126.88 −99 253.91
6 −111 19.03 −110 38.06 −108 76.13 −103 152.34
7 −115 11.1 −113 22.2 −112 44.41 −106 88.87
8 −118 6.34 −116 12.69 −115 25.38 −109 50.78
9 −121 3.57 −119 7.14 −117 14.27 −111 28.56
10 −124 1.98 −122 3.96 −120 7.93 −114 15.87
11 −127 1.09 −125 2.18 −123 4.36 −117 8.73
12 −130 0.595 −128 1.19 −126 2.38 −120 4.76

The total link budget of a wireless communication signal propagating from the transmitter to
receiver can be represented as [27]

PRX = PTX + GTX − L TX − L p (d) + GRX − L RX , (9)

where PRX is the received power in dBm, PTX is the transmission power in dBm, GTX is the antenna
gain at the transmitter in dBi, L TX is the cable loss in dB, L p (d) is the path loss in dB in terms of the
function from the distance d, GRX is the antenna gain at the receiver in dB and L RX is the cable loss at
the receiver in dB. Except for the path loss, all these parameters are set to typical values which are
commonly used when simulating a wireless communication link between two dipole antennas [27].
The values of these parameters are summarized in Table 1.
The path loss L p (d) is defined as the propagation loss caused by the signal traveling from the
transmitter to receiver over a distance d. The goal in this research is to maximize d while still being
able to successfully receive the LoRa-modulated signal at the receiver. For the sake of simplicity,
the simulated LoRa signal contains eight preamble symbols and no payload bytes.
Depending on the environment, the path loss should be modeled differently. Therefore, in the
next three subsections, we discuss indoor, outdoor (urban) and free space path loss models to translate
the propagation loss into a distance between the transmitter and receiver. The parameters required
by these models are also summarized in Table 1. No fade margin is taken into account; this is further
discussed in Section 6.

4.1. Free Space Environment

The first scenario can be described as a free space environment in which there is a line of sight
(LoS, i.e., the primary Fresnel zone is to be at least 60% clear.) between the TX and RX locations.
In this case, we can use the widely used Free Space Path Loss (FPSL) model to evaluate the maximum
communication range. This model calculates the loss between two isotropic radiators in free space,
without considering any obstacles, reflections or interference. The model solely relies on the frequency
and distance between the transmitter and receiver to calculate the path loss:

L p,LoS (d) = 32.44 + 20 log10 ( f ) + 20 log10 (d), (10)

where f is in MHz and d is in km. The combination of a given SF and BW yields a certain sensitivity
PRX . Consequently, given the maximum path loss obtained from (9), we can calculate the maximum
distance as
d = 10( L p,LoS (d)−32.44−20 log10 ( f ))/20 . (11)
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 7 of 12

4.2. Indoor Environment

In the second scenario, we evaluate the maximum communication range in an indoor environment.
To this end, we slightly adapt a heuristic algorithm that was developed based on real measurements
in an office-like environment [28]. The path loss model is based on the Indoor Dominant Path (IDP)
model, which focuses on the dominant path between the TX and RX location. In general, the total path
loss is the sum of the distance loss, accumulated wall loss and interaction loss and can be calculated as

d
L p,in (d) = L p0 (d0 ) + 10 ∗ n ∗ log10 ( ) + ∑ LWi + ∑ L Bj , (12)
d0 i j

where L p0 (d0 ) represents the path loss at a distance d0 and n is the path loss exponent. The accumulated
wall loss is the sum of losses LWi caused by each wall along the dominant path. Finally, the interaction
loss is the sum of losses L Bj caused by all directional changes of the propagating signal.
Given the semi-empirical nature of this path loss model, some parameters need to be set to
commonly used values in order to provide a generally applicable model that can predict ranges in
other indoor environments. Therefore, L p0 (d0 ) is set to 40 dB at a distance d0 = 1 m, as suggested
in [28]. The path loss exponent is set to n = 5, which is generally used for obstructed paths inside
buildings [29]. For the accumulated wall and interaction loss, values of 6 and 3 dB have been taken
into account, as found specifically for the office-like environment in [28]. Consequently, the path loss
model can be simplified to

L p,in (d) = 40 + 5 ∗ 10 ∗ log10 (d) + 6 + 3. (13)

Thus, the range can be empirically estimated based on the path loss:

d = 10( L p,in (d)−49)/50 . (14)

4.3. Urban Environment

An urban path loss model is used in the third scenario to evaluate the range of LoRa at 2.4 GHz
in an outdoor city-scale environment. The Okumura–Hata Urban Path Loss model is an empirical
model that is often used in sub-GHz wireless communication systems. While the COST-231 urban
model extended its use up to 2 GHz, the Electronic Communication Committee (ECC) modified the
original Okumura–Hata model to work with frequencies up to (and beyond) 3 GHz in the ECC-33
model [30,31]. Therefore, the ECC-33 model is suitable to evaluate the maximum communication
range of LoRa at 2.4 GHz in an urban environment. The path loss equation for this model is given by

L p,urban (d) = A f s + Abm + Gb + Gm , (15)

where A f s is the free space attenuation, Abm is the basic median path loss, Gb is the base station height
gain factor and Gr is the receiver height gain factor, which can be calculated as

Afs = 92.4 + 20 log10 (d) + 20 log10 ( f ), (16)

Abm = 20.41 + 9.83 log10 (d) + 7.894log10 ( f )
+ 9.56[log10 ( f )]2 , (17)
h
Gb = log10 ( b ){13.958 + 5.8[log10 (d)]2 }, and (18)
200
Gm = [42.57 + 13.7 log10 f ][log10 (hm ) − 0.585] (19)

for medium-sized urban environments. Given the complexity of this set of equations, we extract the
maximum range by iterating over values of d from 1 m to 10 km and solving the optimization problem
given a certain path loss L p,urban (d).
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 8 of 12

5. Range Versus Data Rate: Results

Figures 2–4 show the maximum communication range and corresponding data rate at each
combination of SF and bandwidth for the free space and indoor and urban environments, respectively.
In all cases, the highest possible data rate decreases in a logarithmic way when the communication
range between the transmitter and receiver increases.
Using the Free Space Path Loss model, it is found that a 2.4 GHz LoRa signal can travel up to
133 km in free space and still be received properly. Obviously, this is only a theoretical range and
cannot be realized in real-world environments.
The performance of a more realistic indoor path loss model has been visualized in Figure 3.
When transmitting with a spreading factor of 12 and the lowest bandwidth (i.e., 203 kHz), the path
loss equals 142.5 dB. Consequently, a maximum communication range of 74 m can be achieved.
Furthermore, the highest possible data rate at that range becomes 0.595 kbit/s. At the other extreme,
the highest achievable data rate of 253.91 kbit/s is possible at a range of up to 18 m.
Finally, the communication range of the urban ECC-33 path loss model varies from 3 m at the
highest achievable data rate of 253.91 kbit/s to 443 m at the lowest possible data rate of 0.595 kbit/s.

BW (kHz) SF
102 203 5
406 6
Data rate (kbps)

812 7
1625 8
101 9
10
11
12
100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Range (m) ×103
Figure 2. Communication range and data rate for every combination of spreading factor (SF) and
bandwidth (BW) in a free space line of sight (LoS) environment.

BW (kHz) SF
102 203 5
406 6
Data rate (kbps)

812 7
1625 8
101 9
10
11
12
100

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Range (m)

Figure 3. Communication range and data rate for every combination of spreading factor (SF) and
bandwidth (BW) in an indoor environment.
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 9 of 12

BW (kHz) SF
102 203 5
406 6
Data rate (kbps)

812 7
1625 8
101 9
10
11
12
100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Range (m)

Figure 4. Communication range and data rate for every combination of spreading factor (SF) and
bandwidth (BW) in an urban environment.

6. Discussion
We investigated the maximum communication range of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz band, which is
defined as the maximum distance between a transmitter and receiver at which a LoRa-modulated
message can be received properly. Our investigations included three environments: LoS free space,
NLoS indoor and urban outdoor. In all three scenarios, we maximized the range by reducing the
bandwidth and increasing the spreading factor.
Based on the total link budget of the wireless communication system, including receiver sensitivity,
antenna gains and cable losses, we were able to estimate the range of LoRa at 2.4 GHz. It is important
to note that we did not include a fade margin in the link budget calculations. The fade margin can
be defined as the level of received power in excess of that required for a specified minimum level
of system performance. The reason for excluding this loss parameter in (9) is the high variability of
fade margin in different scenarios. For instance, a 5 dB fade margin decreases the maximum urban
range from 867 m to 576 m, while a 10 dB fade margin further decreases the range to 164 m. Thus,
this should be taken into account when analyzing the results. Nonetheless, the largest factor by far in
a link budget is the path loss.
The free space line-of-sight scenario resulted in a theoretical maximum range of 133 km when
transmitting at the highest SF and using the lowest bandwidth. In reality, the signal will always
have to cope with obstacles, multipath propagation effects and interference with other signals.
Therefore, these ranges will never be achieved in a real-world environment. Nevertheless, the results
of the Free Space Path Loss model are useful as a benchmark as they enable us to compare them
with different frequencies and technologies. For instance, the maximum range of LoRa at 868 MHz
calculated with the FSPL model equals 921 km, which is almost seven times the range of LoRa at
2.4 GHz.
For the indoor range estimation of 2.4 GHz LoRa, an indoor path loss model was evaluated.
In order to provide the highest possible accuracy, a model based on real-world measurements was
adopted and slightly modified, taking into account both wall and interaction loss [28]. The estimated
range varies from 18 m to 74 m, depending on the SF and BW. It should be noted that a path loss
exponent of 5 was chosen, simulating an obstructed indoor environment. However, in an indoor LoS
scenario, the range might therefore be increased.
Finally, the maximum communication range in an urban environment was found to be 867 m.
As indicated in Figure 4, the range at an SF of 10 and a BW equal to 406 kHz is 443 m. This is similar
to the results of the experiments with the SX1280 chipset carried out by Wolf et al. [17]. They found
that ToF ranging with the aforementioned SF and BW failed for ranges over about 500 m. Although
they only investigated the ranging feature at an SF of 10 and a BW equal to 406 kbit/s and 1625 kbit/s,
this partially validates our range estimations of the ECC-33 path loss model.
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 10 of 12

Besides the communication range, we investigated the data rates for all combinations of SFs and
BWs and consequently associated this information with the highest achievable range. The highest
possible data rate of LoRa at 2.4 GHz equals 253.91 kbit/s, which is almost seven times higher than
the maximum data rate of LoRa at 868 MHz. This data rate can be achieved if the distance between
the transmitter and receiver is not greater than 3739 m, 18 m and 3 m in a free space, indoor and urban
environment, respectively.
Some significant differences in terms of range arise when comparing LoRa to other technologies
operating in the 2.4 GHz band. As mentioned earlier, the range of the latest Bluetooth standard equals
50 m and 165 m in an indoor and outdoor environment, respectively. Moreover, the maximum range
of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi networks typically varies around 100 m. Thus, the outdoor range of LoRa is almost
three times larger than the outdoor range of BLE 5 and more than eight times larger compared to
typical IEEE 802.11 networks. This is mainly due to the lower bandwidth and data rates used in LoRa,
as well as the robustness of the LoRa-modulated signal. These numbers clearly indicate the significant
difference in intended applications between LoRa (such as long-range communication and localization)
and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (such as video and audio streaming).
Since LoRa modulation at 2.4 GHz has a higher bandwidth than LoRa modulation at 868 MHz,
the rising edge of a signal pulse can be determined more accurately. Therefore, we expect
that time-based localization methods for this technology will result in lower estimation errors.
However, the results in this paper show that it is not possible to achieve the same long communication
ranges as LoRa at 868 MHz and with other sub-GHz LPWANs. Therefore, more LoRa receivers have to
be deployed to cover wide areas, which makes it a less feasible solution to build large public networks.
On the other hand, 2.4 GHz LoRa is an interesting option for both communication and localization in
privately deployed networks that are purposed for asset tracking and monitoring in large warehouses,
construction sites, farms, etc.

7. Conclusions
With the move from sub-GHz frequency bands to the globally available 2.4 GHz ISM band,
hardware manufacturers are able to design a uniform LoRa chipset which functions independently of
the region of deployment. However, as a consequence of moving to a higher frequency, the range of
LoRa is reduced when compared to the sub-GHz range of several kilometers. In this paper, we first
provide an overview of LoRa operating in the 2.4 GHz band. By calculating the link budget of a
chipset operating in this band, the range of a LoRa modulated signal is estimated in a free space and in
indoor and outdoor scenarios. When compared to other technologies operating in the 2.4 GHz band,
LoRa outperforms them in terms of communication range, due to the configurable SF and bandwidth.
Thus, when configuring a LoRa channel at 2.4 GHz, a trade-off between range and data rate should be
taken into account. Moreover, this trade-off leads to more flexible applications, such as the localization
of assets in a private LoRaWAN network, which will be investigated in future work.

Author Contributions: The presented work was carried out in collaboration with all of the authors.
Conceptualization, M.W.; methodology, T.J. and M.W.; software, T.J. and N.B.; validation, M.A.; investigation, T.J.
and N.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.J., N.B. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, R.B. and M.W.;
visualization, T.J., N.B. and R.B.; supervision, R.B. and M.W.; All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: Thomas Janssen is funded by the Fund For Scientific Research (FWO) Flanders under grant number
1S03821N. Part of this research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation program under grant agreement No 769267 (PortForward project).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sendra, S.; García, L.; Lloret, J.; Bosch, I.; Vega-Rodríguez, R. LoRaWAN Network for Fire Monitoring in
Rural Environments. Electronics 2020, 9, 531. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 11 of 12

2. Mackey, A.; Spachos, P. LoRa-based Localization System for Emergency Services in GPS-less Environments.
In Proceedings of the INFOCOM 2019—IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops
(INFOCOM WKSHPS), Paris, France, 29 April–2 May 2019; pp. 939–944. [CrossRef]
3. Buurman, B.; Kamruzzaman, J.; Karmakar, G.; Islam, S. Low-Power Wide-Area Networks: Design Goals,
Architecture, Suitability to Use Cases and Research Challenges. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 17179–17220. [CrossRef]
4. Cilfone, A.; Davoli, L. LoRaFarM: A LoRaWAN-Based Smart Farming Modular IoT Architecture. Sensors
2020. [CrossRef]
5. Semtech. Semtech SX128x Long Range Datasheet. 2019. Available online: https://semtech.my.salesforce.
com/sfc/p/#E0000000JelG/a/2R000000HVET/HfcgiChyabtiPTh6EjcDM6ZEwAOQV7IirEmRULgggMM
(accessed on 26 May 2020).
6. Aernouts, M.; BniLam, N.; Podevijn, N.; Plets, D.; Joseph, W.; Berkvens, R.; Weyn, M. Combining TDoA
and AoA with a Particle Filter in an Outdoor LoRaWAN Network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ION
PLANSx Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS), Portland, OR, USA, 20–23 April 2020;
IEEE: St-Louis, MO, USA, 2020.
7. Augustin, A.; Yi, J.; Clausen, T.; Townsley, W. A Study of LoRa: Long Range & Low Power Networks for the
Internet of Things. Sensors 2016, 16, 1466. [CrossRef]
8. Ayoub, W.; Samhat, A.E.; Nouvel, F.; Mroue, M.; Prévotet, J.C. Internet of Mobile Things: Overview of
LoRaWAN, DASH7, and NB-IoT in LPWANs standards and Supported Mobility. IEEE Commun. Surv.
Tutorials 2019, 21, 1561–1581. [CrossRef]
9. Bernier, C.; Dehmas, F.; Deparis, N. Low Complexity LoRa Frame Synchronization for Ultra-Low Power
Software-Defined Radios. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2020, 68, 3140–3152. [CrossRef]
10. Sisinni, E.; Ferrari, P.; Fernandes Carvalho, D.; Rinaldi, S.; Marco, P.; Flammini, A.; Depari, A. LoRaWAN
Range Extender for Industrial IoT. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 2020, 16, 5607–5616. [CrossRef]
11. Janssen, T.; Aernouts, M.; Berkvens, R.; Weyn, M. Outdoor Fingerprinting Localization Using Sigfox.
In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN),
Nantes, France, 24–27 September 2018.
12. Janssen, T.; Berkvens, R.; Weyn, M. Comparing Machine Learning Algorithms for RSS-Based Localization
in LPWAN. In International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC-2019);
Barolli, L., Hellinckx, P., Natwichai, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Antwerp, Belgium, 2019;
pp. 726–735. [CrossRef]
13. Janssen, T.; Weyn, M.; Berkvens, R. A Primer on Real-world RSS-based Outdoor NB-IoT Localization.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS), Tampere, Finland,
2–4 June 2020.
14. BniLam, N.; Steckel, J.; Weyn, M. Synchronization of multiple independent subarray antennas:
An application for angle of arrival estimation. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2019, 67, 1223–1232. [CrossRef]
15. Bnilam, N.; Joosens, D.; Steckel, J.; Weyn, M. Low Cost AoA Unit for IoT Applications. In Proceedings of the 13th
European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP 2019), Krakow, Poland, 31 March–5 April 2019.
16. Semtech. Application Note: Ranging with the SX1280 Transceiver. 2017. Available online: https://semtech.
my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#E0000000JelG/a/44000000MDiH/OF02Lve2RzM6pUw9gNgSJXbDNaQJ_
NtQ555rLzY3UvY (accessed on 5 July 2020).
17. Wolf, F.; Le Deroff, K.; de Rivaz, S.; Deparis, N.; Dehmas, F.; Cances, J.P. Benchmarking of Narrowband
LPWA Physical Layer Ranging Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2019 16th Workshop on Positioning,
Navigation and Communications (WPNC), Bremen, Germany, 23–24 October 2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
18. Mahanti, A.; Carlsson, N.; Williamson, C.; Arlitt, M. Ambient interference effects in Wi-Fi networks.
In International Conference on Research in Networking; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg Germany, 2010; Volume
6091 LNCS, pp. 160–173. [CrossRef]
19. Polak, L.; Milos, J. Performance analysis of LoRa in the 2.4 GHz ISM band: coexistence issues with Wi-Fi.
Telecommun. Syst. 2020, 74, 299–309. [CrossRef]
20. Karvonen, H.; Pomalaza-Ráez, C.; Mikhaylov, K.; Hämäläinen, M.; Iinatti, J. Experimental Performance
Evaluation of BLE 4 Versus BLE 5 in Indoors and Outdoors Scenarios. In Advances in Body Area Networks;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 235–251. [CrossRef]
21. Knight, M.; Seeber, B. Decoding LoRa: Realizing a Modern LPWAN with SDR. Proc. GNU Radio Conf. 2016, 1.
Sensors 2020, 20, 4366 12 of 12

22. Vangelista, L. Frequency Shift Chirp Modulation: The LoRa Modulation. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 2017,
24, 1818–1821. [CrossRef]
23. Robyns, P.; Quax, P.; Lamotte, W.; Thenaers, W. A multi-channel software decoder for the LoRa modulation
scheme. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security
(IoTBDS 2018), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 19–21 March 2018; pp. 41–51. [CrossRef]
24. Ghanaatian, R.; Afisiadis, O.; Cotting, M.; Burg, A. Lora Digital Receiver Analysis and Implementation.
In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing
(ICASSP), Brighton, UK, 12–17 May 2019; pp. 1498–1502. [CrossRef]
25. Popovic, B. Generalized chirp-like polyphase sequences with optimum correlation properties. IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory 1992, 38, 1406–1409. [CrossRef]
26. Hua, M.; Wang, M.; Yang, K.W.; Zou, K.J. Analysis of the frequency offset effect on Zadoff-Chu sequence
timing performance. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2014, 62, 4024–4039. [CrossRef]
27. Heereman, F.; Joseph, W.; Tanghe, E.; Plets, D.; Verloock, L.; Martens, L. Path loss model and prediction of
range, power and throughput for 802.11n in large conference rooms. AEU-Int. J. Electron. Commun. 2012,
66, 561–568. [CrossRef]
28. Plets, D.; Joseph, W.; Vanhecke, K.; Tanghe, E.; Martens, L. Simple Indoor Path Loss Prediction Algorithm
and Validation in Living Lab Setting. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2013, 68, 535–552. [CrossRef]
29. Razali, N.A.M.; Habaebi, M.H.; Zulkurnain, N.F.; Islam, M.R.; Zyoud, A. The distribution of path loss
exponent in 3D indoor environment. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017, 12, 7154–7161.
30. Mollel, M.; Kisangiri, M. Comparison of Empirical Propagation Path Loss Models for Mobile Communication.
Comput. Eng. Intell. Syst. 2014, 5, 1–11.
31. Iskander, M.F. Channel Characterization and Propagation Models for LTE Path Loss Prediction in Urban
and Suburban Ghana. Int. J. Wirel. Mob. Networks (IJWMN) 2019, 11, 23–32.

c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).